Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion


EDITORIAL: A healthy dose of sunshine

Judicial selection panel interviews candidates in the open

Technically, Nevadans elect their judges.

But incumbency is a powerful vote-getter.


Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Stood her ground
  • LETTERS: A moral obligation to not bankrupt the country
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Allowed' to carry for self-defense
  • LETTERS: Nursery did the right thing with laborers
  • EDITORIAL: Numbers stink?
  • LETTERS: Teachers not most important learning variable
  • LETTERS: Agassi remains a good citizen
  • EDITORIAL: Gotta have faith
  • EDITORIAL: Clunk, clunk
  • LETTERS: Put aside re-election interests for nation's good




  • In down-ballot races where voters are unlikely to know much about the candidates (barring a wave of negative publicity about any particular jurist), voters often deem it safer to stick with someone who's shown they can do the job.

    So, at least at the District Court level, many Nevada judges are actually appointed.

    The mechanics of the process work like this: A sitting judge, having won higher office or put in enough years to qualify for a generous pension, announces his or her retirement. But the judge retires mid-term.

    At that point, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection solicits applications from interested attorneys and lower-court judges and narrows the field from a few dozen to a few -- a process that's historically been carried out in secret. The governor then makes the final selection of a candidate to complete the unexpired term -- a candidate who will be considered an "incumbent," come election day.

    Few are bounced. Clark County District Judge Douglas Herndon, for instance, was appointed to the bench in January 2005 to replace Ron Parraguirre, who had won election to the Supreme Court. After slightly more than a year in office, Judge Herndon drew no opposition when he filed for election the following year. Similarly, Clark County District Judge Tim Williams handily won an election challenge barely six months after his appointment to replace the retiring John McGroarty.

    This makes the interview and selection process of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection a vital piece of public business.

    Fortunately, late last year, the commission took a vital step toward accountability and transparency, voting unanimously to open its screening process to the public.

    While letters of recommendation will remain secret in hopes of ensuring candidness by their authors, last December's decision paved the way for interviews, deliberations and most backup material to be made available to taxpayers.

    Tuesday morning, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection started what was expected to be a long day interviewing applicants for a Clark County Family Court seat made vacant by the retirement of Judge Gerald Hardcastle. And -- for the first time -- that interview process was open to the public.

    "The commission believes in the quality of the process and firmly believes the public should see it," said Chief Justice Bill Maupin, who chaired the selection committee last year. "This is an experiment in open government we know will succeed."

    And it's a giant leap forward.

    Current Chief Justice Mark Gibbons and his colleagues on the selection panel -- Ruthe Agee, Ann Bersi, Rose Dominguez, David Grundy, Michael Pennington and Thomas L. Stockard, as well as temporary members Steve Wolfson and Jeffrey Gilbert -- deserve high praise for putting the interests of the state and the public above "politics as usual."

    Gov. Jim Gibbons is expected to make an appointment from among the three finalists within about 30 days.

    Accountability to voters overrides all other concerns when it comes to choosing judges. A healthy dose of sunshine is welcome into the judicial selection process.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 9 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    Michael Green wrote on July 24, 2008 08:52 PM: Tim, I have grown up in Nevada. I have a considerable stake in this state. And I will tell you something else: just saying we should get rid of all of the incumbents is not a solution. Why do you think that getting rid of everybody, good and bad (I think there are good people in office and I think there are bad people), means you will be rid of pandering politicians or crooks or idiots?

    As for being anti-government, since I felt this way before I was a state employee, I think I can safely say my views are consistent. Many Nevadans say government is bad, but I don't see them putting their children in private schools, going to private colleges, refusing state aid, avoiding roads built by the state, etc. Considering how little we pay in taxes in Nevada--and we do pay very little compared with most other places--and how low tuitions are in higher education (where I work), we have more people complaining with less reason than anyone this side of Donald Trump saying he doesn't have enough money.


    Report abuse

    tim wrote on July 24, 2008 04:05 PM: illogical anti-incumbancy,anti-government?how about mikes illogical statement?the people are fed up mike,if you can't tell, what we have now is useless,pandering politicians.maybe your new to nv.or you have a stake in keeping it the way it is,but sadly you are the minority.sorry.


    Report abuse

    TalkingHead wrote on July 24, 2008 12:19 PM: Now, if we could only have greater sunshine and transparency in the selection of those who sit on the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection, particularly those selected by the state bar...


    Report abuse

    Michael Green wrote on July 24, 2008 10:40 AM: Not just because it comes out of the morass of illogical anti-incumbency and anti-government views, John makes a fine point. Many candidates who seek another office while still in office get contributions simply because they will still be around if they lose. The problem is that if they challenge an incumbent, that incumbent still can be in office during the campaign. Is there a way to counteract that problem?


    Report abuse

    john wrote on July 24, 2008 09:04 AM: Any politician that wants to run for another new office, should have to resign his current office automatically, as part of filing for the new office. Then we wouldn't have to pay them to run for an office, with a guaranteed job when they lose.


    Report abuse

    br wrote on July 24, 2008 07:50 AM: There should be a "none of the above" and a blank line for "write-ins" for every office on the ballots.

    VOTE AGAINST ANY INCUMBENT, INCLUDING THOSE RUNNING FOR A DIFFRENT OFFICE.


    Report abuse

    Lawrence Hyde wrote on July 24, 2008 07:43 AM: The ballots should have a capital I in parentheses behind the incumbent. That way the folks who don't follow politics closely can vote against that incumbent.


    Report abuse

    tim wrote on July 24, 2008 06:41 AM: how can we throw the bums out when they have no opposition?hadcastle for instance,no one challenging her.this state sucks,one one to choose from.what is their some kind of scam going on?don't run against me and i'll have you appointed?i will not vote for any judge who has no one running against them.fixed or broken,things have to change.


    Report abuse

    kl wrote on July 24, 2008 06:19 AM: Nevada has too many judges already.
    They are are all corrupt and unethical siding with the lies made by the cops.

    Never, never never trust a cop or judge. They are NOT on your side..

    Stop the Domestic Police Terrorism.

    Vote them out.